> You're making the false assumption that designing something that last at least 90 days, but ends up lasting 2000 days is more expensive than something intende

> You're making the false assumption that designing something that last at least 90 days, but ends up lasting 2000 days is more expensive than something intended to last at least 90, and at most 180. I think this demonstrates the risk op was getting at. Designed for 90 and lasting more is not an implicit assurance it will last up to 180. It changes expectations and that always Cascades.